Does the First Amendment Bar Public Schools from Removing School Library Books Based on Their Viewpoints?
The Supreme Court split on this 4-4 in 1982, and the matter remains unsettled.
The Supreme Court split on this 4-4 in 1982, and the matter remains unsettled.
and thus not being able to safely participate in BDSM activities (presumably on the dominant side)?
Right now, Hongkongers have lost their avenues to speak because of the national security law imposed by the new government.
The Court’s decisions in Gonzalez and subsequent cases could lead to impossible, incompatible consequences.
Florida's H.B. 999 claims to support "viewpoint diversity" and "intellectual rigor." It does just the opposite.
It’s already illegal to expose minors to obscenity, so what is this bill really for?
by Prof. Peter de Marneffe (Ariz. State).
"The current law is that parents have a right to direct the education of their child,'' said the bill's sponsor. "And this is a parents' rights state.''
"The bill is an aggressive and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to rewrite defamation law in a manner that protects the powerful from criticism by journalists and the public," said one attorney.
The mystery writer and cultural critic is an outspoken defender of free thinking and cultural appropriation.
Plus: The U.S. Supreme Court considers another internet free speech case, the Department of Transportation pushes expensive new rail regs, and more...
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook on Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a discussion of the decentralized protocol Nostr with NVK, Damus app creator Will Casarin, Nick Gillespie, and Zach Weissmueller.
The statute required no-boycott-of-Israel terms in Arkansas government contracts; the Eighth Circuit had held that the law doesn't violate the First Amendment.
Plus: The National Endowment for Democracy ends funding of conservative media blacklist, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear major internet free speech case, and more...
Section 230 helped the internet flourish. Now its scope is under scrutiny.
"[P]ublic access is designed not only to allow the press and the public to follow high-profile cases, but also to permit ongoing and future access. Law students or legal scholars review case files for law review articles, attorneys review past cases when similar litigation arises, and litigation may be a source of information for policy-makers considering, for example, safety regulations or for journalists reporting more broadly on either the courts or the subject matter of particular litigation."
The University of Washington thus wasn't barred by the First Amendment from disclosing such names in response to a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals public records request.
No success for the plaintiffs, at least at this stage.
"Today's decision is a victory for the First Amendment that should be celebrated by everyone who hopes to see the internet continue as a place where even difficult and contentious issues can be debated and discussed freely," said one attorney.
... Without Due Process Rights (in the Private Sector Workplace)?"
Gonzalez v. Google presents the Supreme Court’s first opportunity to weigh in on Section 230.
Plus: New York "hate speech" law is likely unconstitutional, FTC Commissioner quits because of chair Lina Khan's antics, and more...
A government-supported organization's controversial ratings of online news sources illustrate the challenge of deciding what qualifies as disinformation.
when plaintiff's "connection to his trees [was] rooted in a vague and indeterminate concept of spirituality, quantum physics, and cosmic mechanics."
Reason is listed among the "ten riskiest online news outlets" by a government-funded disinfo tracker.
Plus: Government regulation of speech is on trial, biohackers flock to experimental charter city in Honduras, and more…
was an unconstitutional delegation of government power, an Arizona trial judge held.
Because of a series of misleading memes, a troll has been charged with conspiracy "to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
"If I disagreed or offered another opinion, I was told I had cognitive dissonance," Josh Diemert says.
The panel was moderated by Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho, and included former Solicitor General Paul Clement, Prof. Renee Lettow Lerner, legal journalist David Lat, lawyer Jay Edelson, and me.